1) An Ominous Beginning
2) Misrepresenting the 9/11 Report
3) Suggesting Political Motivation Behind Terror Warnings
4) Same Campaign Tactic, Two Different Takes
5) A Double Standard on Acceptance Speeches
6) Conspiracy Theorizing on Bush's Debate "Bulge"
7) Ron Suskind on Bush's "Intolerance of Doubt"
8) Tarring "Unsubstantiated" Swift Boats Veterans, Plugging False Bush "AWOL" Smear
9) A Slanted Voter Guide
10) "Looted Iraqi Explosives" Scoop: Bombshell or Politically Motivated Dud?

"I have sympathy with what George Bush is trying to do, although obviously the excursion [into Iraq] is not going well."

...the America which votes tomorrow is a country riven over morality like never before. On the flip side of the culture of ubiquitous sex is that of puritan Christianity, as harnessed in no small part by Bush. "Yes, there is this puritanism," says Wolfe, "and I suppose we are talking here about what you might call the religious right. But I don't think these people are left or right, they are just religious, and if you are religious, you observe certain strictures on sexual activity - you are against the mainstream, morally speaking. And I do have sympathy with them, yes, though I am not religious. I am simply in awe of it all; the openness of sex. In the 60s they talked about a sexual revolution, but it has become a sexual carnival."

..."If I have been judged to be right wing," he says, "I think this is because of the things I have mocked. It started with Radical Chic [published in 1970, about a fundraising party for the Black Panthers organised by Leonard Bernstein]. I was denounced because people thought I had jeopardised all progressive causes. But my impulse was not political, it was simply the absurdity of the occasion. Then I wrote The Painted Word, about modern art, and was denounced as reactionary. In fact, it is just a history, although a rather loaded one. Then came The Right Stuff [his account of America's first astronauts], after which my relative enthusiasm for Nasa was another sign of perfidy."

He is "proud", he says, "that I do not think any political motivation can be detected in my long books. My idol is Emile Zola. He was a man of the left, so people expected of him a kind of Les Miserables, in which the underdogs are always noble people. But he went out, and found a lot of ambitious, drunk, slothful and mean people out there. Zola simply could not - and was not interested in - telling a lie. You can call it honesty, or you can call it ego, but there it is. There is no motivation higher than being a good writer."

..."Here is an example of the situation in America," he says: "Tina Brown wrote in her column that she was at a dinner where a group of media heavyweights were discussing, during dessert, what they could do to stop Bush. Then a waiter announces that he is from the suburbs, and will vote for Bush. And ... Tina's reaction is: 'How can we persuade these people not to vote for Bush?' I draw the opposite lesson: that Tina and her circle in the media do not have a clue about the rest of the United States. You are considered twisted and retarded if you support Bush in this election. I have never come across a candidate who is so reviled. Reagan was sniggered it, but this is personal, real hatred. "Indeed, I was at a similar dinner, listening to the same conversation, and said: 'If all else fails, you can vote for Bush.' People looked at me as if I had just said: 'Oh, I forgot to tell you, I am a child molester.' I would vote for Bush if for no other reason than to be at the airport waving off all the people who say they are going to London if he wins again. Someone has got to stay behind."

"I think support for Bush is about not wanting to be led by East-coast pretensions. It is about not wanting to be led by people who are forever trying to force their twisted sense of morality onto us, which is a non-morality. That is constantly done, and there is real resentment. Support for Bush is about resentment in the so-called 'red states' - a confusing term to Guardian readers, I agree - which here means, literally, middle America. I come from one of those states myself, Virginia. It's the same resentment, indeed, as that against your own newspaper when it sent emails targeting individuals in an American county." Wolfe laughs as he chastises. "No one cares to have outsiders or foreigners butting into their affairs. I'm sure that even many of those Iraqis who were cheering the fall of Saddam now object to our being there. As I said, I do not think the excursion is going well."

And John Kerry? "He is a man no one should worry about, because he has no beliefs at all. He is not going to introduce some manic radical plan, because he is poll-driven, and it is therefore impossible to know where or for what he stands."

...And there has been a complete climate change in the nation which elected Bill Clinton twice, to that which may confer the same honour on George Bush tomorrow. This, says Wolfe, began not with the election of Bush, but on the morning of September 11 2001...

"That day told us that here was a different kind of enemy. I honestly think that America and the Bush administration felt that something extreme had to be done. But I do not think that the Americans have become a warlike people; it is rare in American history to set about empire-building - acquiring territory and slaves. I've never met an American who wanted to build an empire. And while the invasion of Afghanistan was something that had to be done, I am stunned that Iraq was invaded."

Wolfe is by no means afraid to offend the political right - "I'm gratified if you find me to be hard on them too," he says. He also anticipates that "conservatives will not like this new novel because I refuse to take the impact of political correctness seriously - I think PC has probably had a good effect because it is now bad manners to use racial epithets."

So what is it about his liberal neighbours and fellow diners in his adoptive New York that Wolfe cannot abide? "I cannot stand the lock-step among everyone in my particular world. They all do the same thing, without variation. It gets so boring. There is something in me that particularly wants it registered that I am not one of them."

A sea lawyer also is a master at telling his listeners what they want to hear. He will describe the same action or event differently to his seniors, his peers, and his subordinates. The difference is not in the substance but in the shading of what he says, and always in such a way as to justify whatever it is that he has done. When something goes wrong, it was never his fault

But most of all a sea lawyer knows the rules so well that he can exploit any loophole to his personal advantage. For example, every Viet Nam vet that I questioned did not know that they could request a transfer if they had been awarded three Purple Hearts. Admittedly, my sample size is small, but it includes, among others, a high school classmate who flew Navy helo's in Viet Nam and a Naval Academy classmate who was skipper of a Swift Boat about the same time as John Kerry. None of them knew about the three Purple Heart rule – but John Kerry knew. Senator Kerry claims that he anguished over his decision to request a transfer back to a shore assignment in the United States, but the facts are that within four days of his third purple heart, his request was in Washington.

Commanding Officers and unit commanders don't care much for sea lawyers. They may be reasonably effective in their job, but overall they are a burden. Given an opportunity to transfer a sea lawyer, they usually do it rather than trying to persuade the individual to remain aboard. Perhaps that is why Lieutenant Kerry's request was forwarded so quickly, and why at least one of his fellow officers encouraged him to make the request. It is very revealing that apparently no one tried to talk him out of it. Could it be they were glad to see him go?

A typical characteristic of a sea lawyer is looking out for number one. They are self-centered. Now, every sailor, enlisted or commissioned, has to look out for his or her own interests, but in the Navy there is a loyalty to one's shipmates. It is a bond that cannot be described in civilian terms. There is no civilian equivalent to the word "shipmate." This bond is weaker, and in some cases non-existent in a sea lawyer.

The bond of shipmates is particularly unique in one who commands a ship, no matter how large or how small. When their tour is complete, Commanding Officers leave their ship with a certain poignancy that cannot be described. I can personally attest to this – I did not want to leave my crew when it was my turn to go, even though I had enjoyed the position for three and a half years. Yet Lt. John Kerry asked to leave his crew after a few weeks. In my opinion, in true sea lawyerly fashion, he abandoned his crew.

It is fascinating to compare Senator John Kerry's Viet Nam service with that of another senator who also served in Viet Nam, Senator John McCain. He was shot down over North Viet Nam in October 1967 and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was severely injured and for a time his survival was in doubt, but he survived despite broken bones and internal injuries.

Senator McCain's father was Admiral John S. McCain, Commander-in-Chief Pacific and his area of responsibility included Viet Nam. The North Vietnamese running the prison knew this, and in June 1968, they offered to let McCain go home. It would be a great propaganda piece for the North Vietnamese. For McCain it was a moral dilemma. The U.S. Code of Conduct requires that prisoners of war only accept release in the order in which they were captured – First In First Out inventory control! There were many POW's who had been there much longer and McCain was torn. However, by their interpretation of the Code, a prisoner could accept an early release if he had serious health problem. McCain was a physical wreck, so he anguished over the decision. Three days later, the Commander of all POW camps in North Viet Nam, nicknamed "The Cat" by the Americans, asked McCain his decision. McCain said "No."

The Cat asked if that was his final decision and McCain said it was. The Cat then said, as related by Baltimore Sun reporter Bob Timberg in his book John McCain: an American Odyssey, "They taught you too well, McCain, they taught you too well." As a direct result of this refusal to accept release, John McCain was tortured severely, a result he could see coming.

The contrast between these two United States Senators is striking.

Many conservatives do not care for Senator McCain's independence, but no one can deny that he was a genuine hero with a lot guts. And he was no sea lawyer! He refused to abandon his fellow POWs.

Senator Kerry claims that he was brave and resolute in his four months in Viet Nam. His supporters say he was a hero. Whether he was or not, I cannot say. I wasn't there. But the majority of those who were there, the "Swifties," say very strongly that he was not. Heroics and bravery aside, I can conclude, both from the way he abandoned his shipmates, his slanderous remarks about his fellow veterans, and his inconsistencies as a presidential candidate, John Kerry is a real sea lawyer.

If John Kerry is elected president, I wonder how he will handle his first crisis. Will he face it and deal with it, or will he waltz around it and explain how it isn't his fault? Will he hang tough or will he once again abandon his crew? This question is not trivial, because the crew he might abandon includes us!

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:53 AM | link  

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:25 AM | link  

Sunday, October 31, 2004

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:29 AM | link  

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:19 AM | link